UN Security Council Reforms

[tarunraju]

Why did China get UNSC when they were defeated by the Japanese until the allies came , China is the only UNSC member that was in reality defeated in ww2 and made a member.

China wasn't any more 'defeated' than perhaps Britain was, proportionally (damages of war).

 

[LETHALFORCE]

First what side are you speaking from Japanese or Chinese? Did the allies help China win or did China do it themselves?

 

[Koji]

First what side are you speaking from Japanese or Chinese? Did the allies help China win or did China do it themselves?

Of course they didn't do it themselves!! They were part of an alliance. Perhaps you do not understand the full meaning of the term. Did the UK win by themselves? Certainly not, but they are considered victors. Same with Russia.

But they were still an independent sovereign power, which in the end makes the different than India, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, NZ, Iraq, etc.

 

[tarunraju]

First what side are you speaking from Japanese or Chinese? Did the allies help China win or did China do it themselves?

No member of the Allied Forces could win on its own. The Americans loosely depended on the Chinese in the Pacific theatre, and the Britts in the European front. Likewise, the Britts owe their very existence to the Americans. You can come up with more examples..

 

[LETHALFORCE]

China wasn't any more 'defeated' than perhaps Britain was, proportionally (damages of war).

Chinese claim 15-20 million dead in ww2 while England had about 500,000 dead, the biggest loss was for Russia which claimed 24 million dead, India casualities were over 2 million, to compare British dead which includes civilian and infantry to Chinese or Russian casualties is a joke.

 

[IBRIS]

First what side are you speaking from Japanese or Chinese? Did the allies help China win or did China do it themselves?

If it wasn't for USA china was getting conqured by Imperial Army. China was loosing even with the help of Germans couldn't stop Japanes advances. Intensive bombardment of Nanking let chinese journals abandoned there positions.

It was Indians who slaughtered japanese army in Burma.
http://www.iwm.org.uk/upload/package/1/burma/summary.htm

 

[roma]

What about indias present and ,ore importantly FUTURE strength ?

Correct me if im wrong but a lot of the talk especially the past few posts ( i admit i havent read the whole thread but the fisrt few and the last few . A lot of the reasoning as to whether india should have a perm seat or not is based on the past . What about the present and more importantly FUTURE STRENGTH of the second largest human system in the world . For france or britain to be in and india to be out is quite surely unrealistic.

secondly part of the idea of the permanent seating is a de-facto recognition that the nation concerned plays an important role in that region in cooperating with the other perm members in maintaining regional and thus global peace .

So as indias military and equally important, economic stength keeps growing , all thy have to do in future if not included . is to not cooperate (fully ) and there you have a gap in the system.

years back when parts of africa were in trouble the west was asking why india hadnt help , having the manpower and resources to intervene - well that is partly why india needs be inclueded - being the major nation in the
afro-middle-eastern-asian region, and that's a pretty vast area too.

China has frequently held hard non-cooperative attitudes towards the west , until they got what they , i hope that will not be an inspiration for india to do the same.

 

[Koji]

Chinese claim 15-20 million dead in ww2 while England had about 500,000 dead, the biggest loss was for Russia which claimed 24 million dead, India casualities were over 2 million, to compare British dead which includes civilian and infantry to Chinese or Russian casualties is a joke.

Now that you have lost your point, perhaps it is better you argue the smaller details.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

No member of the Allied Forces could win on its own. The Americans loosely depended on the Chinese in the Pacific theatre, and the Britts in the European front. Likewise, the Britts owe their very existence to the Americans. You can come up with more examples..

ok I am convinced Indian contributions in ww1 and ww2 don't make them eligble for a UNSC seat do you have any other reasons why India deserves a seat?

 

[Koji]

If it wasn't for USA china was getting conqured by Imperial Army. China was loosing even with the help of Germans couldn't stop Japanes advances. Intensive bombardment of Nanking let chinese journals abandoned there positions.

It was Indians who slaughtered japanese army in Burma.

On the contrary, it was mostly vice versa. And I have pictures that show it.

 

[tarunraju]

ok I am convinced Indian contributions in ww1 and ww2 don't make them eligble for a UNSC seat do you have any other reasons why India deserves a seat?

India holds the world's third largest armed force in terms of personnel, and is equipped/being-equipped with every technology you can think of. We've been a responsible country so far, and haven't been territorially opportunistic against any other country. I think India deserves a UNSC seat a little more than United Kingdom, which really isn't much more than a wealthy island nation, which is fast losing its significance and worthiness to partake in the UNSC.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Correct me if im wrong but a lot of the talk especially the past few posts ( i admit i havent read the whole thread but the fisrt few and the last few . A lot of the reasoning as to whether india should have a perm seat or not is based on the past . What about the present and more importantly FUTURE STRENGTH of the second largest human system in the world . For france or britain to be in and india to be out is quite surely unrealistic.

secondly part of the idea of the permanent seating is a de-facto recognition that the nation concerned plays an important role in that region in cooperating with the other perm members in maintaining regional and thus global peace .

So as indias military and equally important, economic stength keeps growing , all thy have to do in future if not included . is to not cooperate (fully ) and there you have a gap in the system.

years back when parts of africa were in trouble the west was asking why india hadnt help , having the manpower and resources to intervene - well that is partly why india needs be inclueded - being the major nation in the
afro-middle-eastern-asian region, and that's a pretty vast area too.

China has frequently held hard non-cooperative attitudes towards the west , until they got what they , i hope that will not be an inspiration for india to do the same.

India's economic strength is not a reason for India to be in UNSC. Japan,Germany have bigger economies than India that dosen't mean they should be in UNSC. If that were the case then Brazil,S.Africa and Saudi Arabia should also qualify.

The second argument is India's population-India has a big population so that should make them qualify??

The Third argument the future arsenals etc.. Indian arsenal does not come close to any of the P5 in quantity or range of missiles. India is also a non signatory in all major treaties signed by P5 NPT,CTBT,FMCT.

so after these 3 major points that Indians like to use to become a member what is the basis that India should be a member?? History does not count either since we were fighting for UK and we were not a independent country.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

India holds the world's third largest armed force in terms of personnel, and is equipped/being-equipped with every technology you can think of. I think it deserves a UNSC seat a little more than United Kingdom, which really isn't much more than a wealthy island nation, which is fast losing its significance and worthiness to partake in the UNSC.

tarun -n.korea has a large military too still not a convincing argument.

 

[roma]

LF - what i am maintaining is that the COMBINATION of factors which no other country other than the present p5 and india hold. It is the combination which makes india qualify plus its very promising growth capacity which amply qualifies india - unless we are consumed by looking backwards to WW2 and all that.

Plus in the mediterranean-middle-eastern-afro-south asian area it is easily the largest nation and thus can hold the key to maintaining the peace in that huge geo-political area.

 

[tarunraju]

tarun -n.korea has a large military too still not a convincing argument.

Read my post again. We have a large military, we're technologically equipped, and we're a responsible nation. We haven't misused our army against another country for territorial opportunism. If we did, Bangladesh would have been East Bengal again. Instead we liberated them, and used our military only to defend our lands. On the other hand, N. Korea is a rogue state. Your argument is hence weak.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Roma ww2 winners became the P5, that is why we are looking back. Since India was ruled by UK they are a UNSC member and we are not since it was not INDIAN contribution but BRITISH contribution, and our leaders had no brains to even think about these kind of issues so the opportunity is lost. What i am asking is what is the reason India should be in the UNSC??

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Read my post again. We have a large military, we're technologically equipped, and we're a responsible nation. We haven't misused our army against another country for territorial opportunism. If we did, Bangladesh would have been East Bengal again. Instead we liberated them, and used our military only to defend our lands. On the other hand, N. Korea is a rogue state. Your argument is hence weak.

you are giving me the exact reasons why we are not in the P5. What are the reasons we should be? This is a weakness to be such a huge country and be a pacifist, we can't even deal with terrorism, none of the P5 UNSC nations have terrorism issues yes Russia with chechnya but they have replied (militarily) and China the same against the uighurs.

 

[tarunraju]

you are giving me the exact reasons why we are not in the P5. What are the reasons we should be? This is a weakness to be such a huge country and be a pacifist.

Don't confuse being responsible with your armed forces, and minding your own business/territory with pacifism. If we were pacifists, we would have conceded Kashmir and Arunachal, and would have for long been NPT signatories.

 

[roma]

Roma ww2 winners became the P5, that is why we are looking back. Since India was ruled by UK they are a UNSC member and we are not since it was not INDIAN contribution but BRITISH contribution, and our leaders had no brains to even think about these kind of issues so the opportunity is lost. What i am asking is what is the reason India should be in the UNSC??

MMS and company ARE thinking on these issues and have for some time presented the same to then visiting PM Anthony Blair.

MMS and his govt argument is that the world has changed since ww2 and the idea that the P5 represents the winners of that war is out-dated by now. Todays' realities are not being reflected in that p5 and that is a major reason for the need for reform

That was india ONCE in the past a part of britain is an issue which doest arise, we are talking about TODAY and the FUTURE.

IT was actually UK PM Blair who himself said that india's 1 billion CANNOT be excluded.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Don't confuse being responsible with your armed forces, and minding your own business/territory with pacifism. If we were pacifists, we would have conceded Kashmir and Arunachal, and would have for long been NPT signatories.

Good these are the type of examples i am looking for, I am presenting the opposite side of the argument, but I have always felt we belonged in the UNSC long ago and it was more or less our bad leaders fault that we are not there.